What is successful pub par/involvement?

[Caron Chess <chess_c@aesop.rutgers.edu>]

I am now an academic (at Rutgers U) who studies pub par/involvement/collaboration/etc (and participates in my local env commission).  Before being a researcher I worked in state government and previous to  that led an env group.  Based on these experiences, I have  some fundamental questions about eval of pub par including:

1. Why bother with eval?  I think the key goal of eval should be to improve a program-- and feedback should occur during not after the pub par.  Also, unless it can be  demonstrated with some sort of eval that pub par "works,"agencies won't fund it and managers won't do it. 

2. What do we mean by success in pub par?  Do we define success by the how well the  process works, e.g. fairness, representation, access to information, etc. ) Or do we define success by the substantive results e.g., environmental improvement, reduced risk to human health)?    It seems that both matter.  Warm and fuzzy feelings from being treated nicely, won't do reduce concerns about risks from a superfund site, etc.  On the other hand, if EPA is responsive to substantive input but treats people poorly in the process (e.g. making it difficult to get information), I would not call the pub par effort a success.

3. Who gets to define success and participate in evaluation?  The participants (and then there are all the questions about who participates)?  The sponsoring agency?  Some universal criteria that cuts across all pub par situations?  Or all of these?  Or should it depend on the situation?

What do the answers to the above imply for evaluating this on line dialogue?

What are your thoughts?  Do these questions seem on target?

I apologize in advance for not being able to contribute often today?I am participating in a discussion at the National Academy of Sciences about whether and how pub par might be the topic of a NAS study.